6 ms·

So what you're saying is, you'd like to talk like you have a virtuous outlook on life, but you don't actually want to own up to the consequences of said virtue.

So what you're saying is, you'd like to talk like you have a virtuous outlook on life, but you don't actually want to own up to the consequences of said virtue. I can understand this outlook. It is easier to pander to people and act in your best interests than actually suffer the consequences of your ideals. However, I might note that this approach is easy because it seldom accomplishes disruptive change. If you want to really disrupt a market or community, you will often face difficulty, incredulity, ridicule, and unfair play. So it may actually be in your long term best-interests not to play this way. As a capitalist-friendly example, I'd like to point to the iPhone. Apple took a huge risk (especially financially); faced extreme difficulty in developing and sourcing the device; faced ridicule on all sides at the merest rumor of the iPhone; and had to fight very hard to not have a carrier completely destroy the product with their (still present) status quo of "differentiating" every product. However, the end result completely disrupted the phone industry. It's also fascinating to note that the "lawyer-driven behavior" has appeared from Apple as other parties have started working furiously to catch up, and finally begun to succeed. I have worked hard throughout my career to make sure that my name has not ended up on a single software patent. When I was at Microsoft, several were proposed around work I did for Powerset (and 1 was proposed from work I did at Lockheed Martin). I did everything I could to shoot them down and stop them, because I believe they are wrong. Maybe I've hurt my career with this approach, maybe all I've done is piss into the wind, I don't know.

jkubicek 14y ago
> So what you're saying is, you'd like to talk like you have a virtuous outlook on life, but you don't actually want to own up to the consequences of said virtue. I can understand this outlook. It is easier to pander to people and act in your best interests than actually suffer the consequences of your ideals. That's not the point they were making at all. One developer refusing to file for patents on their work is not going to make any difference and will only put them at a competitive disadvantage. Reforming patent law will benefit everyone equally. Until the time that reform happens, there's no need to make yourself a martyr.
- KirinDave 14y ago
  > One developer refusing to file for patents on their work is not going to make any difference and will only put them at a competitive disadvantage. Every developer says this individually, and they're right. But if we all were more diligent about shooting down spurious software patents as a matter of professional pride, it would be a better world. That is to say, if it was considered part of professional ethics to help vet patents for obviousness and prior art for software. And if the thesis, "The patent system is broken" is true, then we're all already at a competitive disadvantage. The pursuits are not mutually exclusive the way you make them sound. Personally, I am tired of everyone saying, "This is the way ____ is done." What you feel there is the status quo, and it is demonstrably not a good thing right now. Do you think these UK banks adjusting Libor have a similar speech about competitive advantage? If we only define "success" but facile metrics like quarterly revenue, then we're going to dig ourselves a hole we will never emerge from, all while piously protesting our invisible hands are tied.
  - shasta 14y ago
    Why don't you go make an impassioned plea to the patent trolls? I'm sure you can solve this problem at its source.
    - KirinDave 14y ago
      I am not making an impassioned plea to patent trolls. I can't change what the people before me did. Instead, I'm trying to have my actions reflect the kind of world I want to live in. That doesn't mean I don't donate time/money/my voice to lobbying for this cause. It simply means I try to be consistent in this.
      - Volpe 14y ago
        "Be the change you want to see" -- Gandhi
- azakai 14y ago
  > One developer refusing to file for patents on their work is not going to make any difference and will only put them at a competitive disadvantage. That is precisely the prisoners dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma and is a classic example of short-term thinking (for a better story, see "iterated prisoner's dilemma"). Specifically here, if one developer refuses to file for patents and influences his fellow developers to do so as well, they can eventually change society. And such influence is much more possible when not only talking about how bad patents are but when actually refusing to file such patents.
is74 14y ago
A person that is against patents will make no societal difference whatsoever by abstaining from them, while hurting their bottom line, so it is not worthwhile. The best way of changing patent law is by lobbying the government. Individual personal efforts of avoiding patents will be completely inconsequential.
- KirinDave 14y ago
  > Individual personal efforts of avoiding patents will be completely inconsequential. Were every software engineer to do what I do, there would be far fewer spurious patents. "Individual personal efforts of avoiding patents will be completely inconsequential," is the worst sort of abrogation of personal responsibility.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - is74 14y ago
    It is completely irrelevant how the world would be if everyone did X, since it will never happen. The only benefit of not using patents is a righteous feeling. It would be much better if everyone who choose to not use patents would instead use patents to earn more money, and use this extra money to lobby their governments to change the laws. It will have a drastically higher ROI.
    - ricardobeat 14y ago
      Ok, why don't we skip the next elections then? Just lobby for your candidate and let the government decide.
    - KirinDave 14y ago
      > It is completely irrelevant how the world would be if everyone did X, since it will never happen. "And that, my boy, is why your fancy horseless carriage will never succeed."
    - jongraehl 14y ago

jkubicek 14y ago

> So what you're saying is, you'd like to talk like you have a virtuous outlook on life, but you don't actually want to own up to the consequences of said virtue. I can understand this outlook. It is easier to pander to people and act in your best interests than actually suffer the consequences of your ideals. That's not the point they were making at all. One developer refusing to file for patents on their work is not going to make any difference and will only put them at a competitive disadvantage. Reforming patent law will benefit everyone equally. Until the time that reform happens, there's no need to make yourself a martyr.

KirinDave 14y ago
> One developer refusing to file for patents on their work is not going to make any difference and will only put them at a competitive disadvantage. Every developer says this individually, and they're right. But if we all were more diligent about shooting down spurious software patents as a matter of professional pride, it would be a better world. That is to say, if it was considered part of professional ethics to help vet patents for obviousness and prior art for software. And if the thesis, "The patent system is broken" is true, then we're all already at a competitive disadvantage. The pursuits are not mutually exclusive the way you make them sound. Personally, I am tired of everyone saying, "This is the way ____ is done." What you feel there is the status quo, and it is demonstrably not a good thing right now. Do you think these UK banks adjusting Libor have a similar speech about competitive advantage? If we only define "success" but facile metrics like quarterly revenue, then we're going to dig ourselves a hole we will never emerge from, all while piously protesting our invisible hands are tied.
- shasta 14y ago
  Why don't you go make an impassioned plea to the patent trolls? I'm sure you can solve this problem at its source.
  - KirinDave 14y ago
    I am not making an impassioned plea to patent trolls. I can't change what the people before me did. Instead, I'm trying to have my actions reflect the kind of world I want to live in. That doesn't mean I don't donate time/money/my voice to lobbying for this cause. It simply means I try to be consistent in this.
    - Volpe 14y ago
      "Be the change you want to see" -- Gandhi
azakai 14y ago
> One developer refusing to file for patents on their work is not going to make any difference and will only put them at a competitive disadvantage. That is precisely the prisoners dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma and is a classic example of short-term thinking (for a better story, see "iterated prisoner's dilemma"). Specifically here, if one developer refuses to file for patents and influences his fellow developers to do so as well, they can eventually change society. And such influence is much more possible when not only talking about how bad patents are but when actually refusing to file such patents.

is74 14y ago

A person that is against patents will make no societal difference whatsoever by abstaining from them, while hurting their bottom line, so it is not worthwhile. The best way of changing patent law is by lobbying the government. Individual personal efforts of avoiding patents will be completely inconsequential.

KirinDave 14y ago
> Individual personal efforts of avoiding patents will be completely inconsequential. Were every software engineer to do what I do, there would be far fewer spurious patents. "Individual personal efforts of avoiding patents will be completely inconsequential," is the worst sort of abrogation of personal responsibility.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- is74 14y ago
  It is completely irrelevant how the world would be if everyone did X, since it will never happen. The only benefit of not using patents is a righteous feeling. It would be much better if everyone who choose to not use patents would instead use patents to earn more money, and use this extra money to lobby their governments to change the laws. It will have a drastically higher ROI.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    Ok, why don't we skip the next elections then? Just lobby for your candidate and let the government decide.
  - KirinDave 14y ago
    > It is completely irrelevant how the world would be if everyone did X, since it will never happen. "And that, my boy, is why your fancy horseless carriage will never succeed."
  - jongraehl 14y ago